On 2011-08-28 17:08, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-08-26 17:57, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2011-07-01 07:05, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Revised proposal:
>>> ...
>>
>> +1 - we may want to add more things or tune, but we should get this in.
>>
>> Proposed patch:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/231/231.diff>
>>
>> ...
>
> ...applied (minus some typos) as
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1417>.
> ...
There recently were some interesting discussion in other Working Groups,
namely:
websec - implications of not using the list syntax when the header field
*does* occur multiple times (Origin, Strict-Transport-Security)
hybi - when using params, whether it makes sense to disallow one of the
two notations on the wire (token vs quoted-string)
oauth - how to I18N parameters (there's a proposal to use JSON escapes
inside quoted-string, which IMHO conflicts with the definition in HTTPbis).
So it's good that we have started work on this (header field syntax
recommendations), but we probably need more:
> o Whether the field is a single value, or whether it can be a list
> (delimited by commas; see Section 3.2 of [Part1]).
add...: "If it does not use the list syntax, how to treat messages where
the header field occurs multiple times (a sensible default would be to
ignore the header field, but this may not always be the right choice)."
Also, we probably should have a single place that defines the "param"
ABNF construct, like
param = token OWS "=" OWS ( token / quoted-string )
or maybe
param = token OWS [ "=" OWS ( token / quoted-string ) ]
and then clarify that predefined params never ever should parse
different from extension parameters; for instance, they should always
allow both notations.
See also <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/307> and
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki/HeaderFieldTypes>.
Best regards, Julian